MakeItSay

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the costing model ('One credit edits one image'), which is genuinely useful context for deciding whether to proceed with an edit. It does not describe what the response looks like (a number, a breakdown per account, etc.), and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the unit semantics. Nothing is wasted or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool this covers purpose and unit meaning adequately. The only meaningful omission is the shape of the return value, which no output schema describes either.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource being retrieved and its scope ('Credits available on this MakeItSay account'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools that all perform edits. It stops short of naming the retrieval action explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — e.g. that an agent should check the balance before invoking replace_text or get_edit. The relevance of the credit cost to the edit tools is implied by the second sentence but never stated as a usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: result_url downloads the edited PNG for one hour and the operation is free, which goes beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key behavioral detail about result_url expiry and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only status tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns status and, when ready, a time-limited download URL. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that wait_seconds enables long-polling, but the schema already carries that detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents edit_id and wait_seconds. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it returns the status of an edit, which is a specific resource and operation, and is distinguishable from siblings like replace_text or scan_text. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit ('Status of an edit' rather than 'Get the status'), so it falls short of maximal specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies polling for an edit result after creation, especially with the note about result_url being ready, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not clearly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantially beyond the annotations: 1 credit per image, no charge when a 'from' is not found, refusal of official documents, 20-line cap, 50-second wait and async fallback. The unbilled-failure and refusal policies are exactly the behavioral facts annotations can't express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then payload format, then limits, then billing/failure semantics, then timeout fallback. Every sentence carries an operational fact; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers cost, limits, refusal policy, error content and timeout behavior for a mutation tool with no output schema. Only the shape of a successful response (what IDs or result fields come back) is left unspecified, which is minor since get_edit is named for follow-up.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'from' is the text as it literally appears, 'to' empty means delete, and the 20-line limit is restated as an operational constraint. It doesn't explain hint, locale, or the image_url/image_base64 choice, leaving some parameters to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Change or remove text in a photo or screenshot') plus the quality constraint (same font, colour, background), which immediately separates it from scan_text (read-only) and get_edit (status check). An agent can route on this sentence alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions and exclusions: documents like IDs, certificates, receipts are refused, and if the edit is still running 'call get_edit'. It also explains the scan-first validation path. It does not explicitly contrast with scan_text, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the coordinate system for returned positions and the cost model ('Free, but counts toward the scan limit'). It does not discuss failure modes or the relationship between the two image inputs, which the schema covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the output shape, then the usage link. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains that the result is lines of text with positions. The only gap is that with zero required parameters, it doesn't clarify that exactly one of image_url or image_base64 must be supplied, though the schema implies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains image_url and image_base64 fully. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (every line of text in an image), plus the shape of the result (position 0-1000 from top left). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like replace_text and get_edit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names a use case and the sibling it feeds: 'Use it to find the exact "from" text for replace_text.' That is strong routing guidance, but it stops short of stating when not to use it or naming other alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.